Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Hi
Well.... if every thread that remotely mentions "Egypt" gets blasted with huge slabs of your claim to be the only superior logical person on the plant that understands the meaning of the PT , or abbrev rants about supersitious stinky footed bumpkins ramps etc then lets ask some questions
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a very simple concept.
>
> The PT is not from the 4th dynasty. They were
> found inside the tiny little pyramids that were
> built after the great pyramids and refer to dead
> kings whose entire life took place after the 4th
> dynasty. As such the PT are from the 5th dynasty
> and every single word and concept in them should
> be assumed to have been from the 5th dynasty.
Well yes you retracted an error Sbey highlighted. Except that similiar utterances and texts are found in 6th Dynasty pyramids and tombs! Are you aquainted with Teti Pepi I and all those ? If so why do you assume ( example of your superior logic?) they are all 5th dynasty?
Why in dynasty 1 2 3 4 is there no pyramid or tomb with simimilar utterances in pyramids you claim the PTs relate to their construction method?
If they are ancient what happened to the originals? How much more ancient than 5th D, were such ancient variations of AE heiroglyphic language?
>
> However it is also true that the utterances which
> comprise the PT were obviously ancient when they
> were inscribed in the 5th dynasty tombs. Since
> these words and ideas were most probably ancient
> it follows that many of the concepts and even the
> utterances themselves originally arose during the
> great pyramid building age.
Why is it "obviously ancient"? Also how does that in your 'superior logic' does it beome "most probably ancient" in the space of 15 of your garbled words ? Again how can any thing "follow" a most probably? Again if they relate to the great pyramid age why no inscription in the great pyramids?
If someone else you know here (also prolific in his superior logic and views) wrote or reworded it into a fat meaningless unsupported claim such as:
However it is also true that the utterances which comprise the PT were obviously from a lost civilization maybe millions of years old when they were inscribed in the 5th and 6th dynasty tombs. Since
these words and ideas were most probably from a separate culture altogether but was adopted by the civilization we call AE it follows that many of the concepts and even the utterances themselves all about lost flying saucers and high technology originally arose during the great pyramid building age millions of years ago.
How would that be any more worthy or or reliable than the unsupported illogical mumbo jumbo of your original?
>
> It will require logic and understanding author
> intent to differentiate what was ancient and what
> was modern.
Who was the author? What was his or her intent? How do you determine or guess "most probably" what you imagine it was?
For instance it's quite apparent that
> the idea of "osiris" arose to replace the concept
> of "atum" whose only referent on earth had died.
> Of course we all take a risk when we ascribe
> meaning to words whether the words are ancient or
> modern but while my understanding is based on
> logic and deduction Egyptological understanding is
> based on their belief that these are incantations
> invented by the superstitious.
In what I have seen of your version of PT you talk about ceremonies and kings ascention where is the dividing line of supersitious?
When is a religious ceremony deemed not superstitious?
We know with certainty later Dynastys (Book of the Dead, Embalmed mummies, provisions for the afterlife etc) held religious (is that what you call supersitious?) They wore similiat clothing, similar but developing both retrograde and advance culture and practices all a consistent progression!?
Your imagined geyser powered funicular built structures called Great Pyramids were suddenly replaced by smaller relatively insignificant (but still astounding eg Chamber Roof blocks of Unas, Sahure etc) and versions yet you think somehow the builder of Unas wanted to splash his whole chamber with a detailed account of how to build GREAT pramid in a sub standard replica? That seems logical to you!!!!????
Are you suggesting the scribe and all concerned didn't know what they were writing (painting)? If so, why didn't they utilize the secrets that only they and YOU know? Did the geysers disappear (you know the many thousands of them) required to build all OK megalithic structures?
If the PT are about the method of pyramid construction techniqu as you claim Then how did they get Aswan huge slabs granite to Giza or Seqqara , how did they cut and polish it, transport it? Why don't you know or why doesn't that critical part of the operation mentioned?
On the one hand
> you have me who says these words make sense and on
> the other you have Egyptologists who say it's
> impossible they can make any sense. So whose
> understanding are you going to accept?
> Egyptological "understanding" is a non sequitur.
Utter 373
Just one , and makes much more sense in the aggregate context of confirmed consistent Ancient Egyptian culture over millenia, than your pyscho babble fantasy.
If a new find was made today containing heiroglyphs seeming to be consistent with PT would you be able to read it and decipher it?
Or would you have to wait for someone else to read and publish it so you could google it and put your spin on it?
It is like you hammering a nail into a house and then claiming you built it!
>
> The word "ramp" is unattested. The Pyramid Texts
> tells exactly what they used instead and is
> consistent with the physical evidence. Meanwhile
> the entire paradigm ultimately depends from ramps,
> superstition, tombs, and a belief that the PT
> makes no sense so only scholars can understand it.
> It makes sense only in terms of the book of the
> dead which necessitates that nothing ever changed.
See utterance 373 above.... ok ... hammer your nails, and try and tell us what you imagine it really means!?????
>
>
> How do people not see this?
>
> The king is nekkid and his clothes are only a
> construct of opinion. Two centuries of opinion do
> not make a fact.
If you ever come up with a fact not clouded by your opinion then there will celebration on the interwebs from folks all over the world.
Cheers
Well.... if every thread that remotely mentions "Egypt" gets blasted with huge slabs of your claim to be the only superior logical person on the plant that understands the meaning of the PT , or abbrev rants about supersitious stinky footed bumpkins ramps etc then lets ask some questions
cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a very simple concept.
>
> The PT is not from the 4th dynasty. They were
> found inside the tiny little pyramids that were
> built after the great pyramids and refer to dead
> kings whose entire life took place after the 4th
> dynasty. As such the PT are from the 5th dynasty
> and every single word and concept in them should
> be assumed to have been from the 5th dynasty.
Well yes you retracted an error Sbey highlighted. Except that similiar utterances and texts are found in 6th Dynasty pyramids and tombs! Are you aquainted with Teti Pepi I and all those ? If so why do you assume ( example of your superior logic?) they are all 5th dynasty?
Why in dynasty 1 2 3 4 is there no pyramid or tomb with simimilar utterances in pyramids you claim the PTs relate to their construction method?
If they are ancient what happened to the originals? How much more ancient than 5th D, were such ancient variations of AE heiroglyphic language?
>
> However it is also true that the utterances which
> comprise the PT were obviously ancient when they
> were inscribed in the 5th dynasty tombs. Since
> these words and ideas were most probably ancient
> it follows that many of the concepts and even the
> utterances themselves originally arose during the
> great pyramid building age.
Why is it "obviously ancient"? Also how does that in your 'superior logic' does it beome "most probably ancient" in the space of 15 of your garbled words ? Again how can any thing "follow" a most probably? Again if they relate to the great pyramid age why no inscription in the great pyramids?
If someone else you know here (also prolific in his superior logic and views) wrote or reworded it into a fat meaningless unsupported claim such as:
However it is also true that the utterances which comprise the PT were obviously from a lost civilization maybe millions of years old when they were inscribed in the 5th and 6th dynasty tombs. Since
these words and ideas were most probably from a separate culture altogether but was adopted by the civilization we call AE it follows that many of the concepts and even the utterances themselves all about lost flying saucers and high technology originally arose during the great pyramid building age millions of years ago.
How would that be any more worthy or or reliable than the unsupported illogical mumbo jumbo of your original?
>
> It will require logic and understanding author
> intent to differentiate what was ancient and what
> was modern.
Who was the author? What was his or her intent? How do you determine or guess "most probably" what you imagine it was?
For instance it's quite apparent that
> the idea of "osiris" arose to replace the concept
> of "atum" whose only referent on earth had died.
> Of course we all take a risk when we ascribe
> meaning to words whether the words are ancient or
> modern but while my understanding is based on
> logic and deduction Egyptological understanding is
> based on their belief that these are incantations
> invented by the superstitious.
In what I have seen of your version of PT you talk about ceremonies and kings ascention where is the dividing line of supersitious?
When is a religious ceremony deemed not superstitious?
We know with certainty later Dynastys (Book of the Dead, Embalmed mummies, provisions for the afterlife etc) held religious (is that what you call supersitious?) They wore similiat clothing, similar but developing both retrograde and advance culture and practices all a consistent progression!?
Your imagined geyser powered funicular built structures called Great Pyramids were suddenly replaced by smaller relatively insignificant (but still astounding eg Chamber Roof blocks of Unas, Sahure etc) and versions yet you think somehow the builder of Unas wanted to splash his whole chamber with a detailed account of how to build GREAT pramid in a sub standard replica? That seems logical to you!!!!????
Are you suggesting the scribe and all concerned didn't know what they were writing (painting)? If so, why didn't they utilize the secrets that only they and YOU know? Did the geysers disappear (you know the many thousands of them) required to build all OK megalithic structures?
If the PT are about the method of pyramid construction techniqu as you claim Then how did they get Aswan huge slabs granite to Giza or Seqqara , how did they cut and polish it, transport it? Why don't you know or why doesn't that critical part of the operation mentioned?
On the one hand
> you have me who says these words make sense and on
> the other you have Egyptologists who say it's
> impossible they can make any sense. So whose
> understanding are you going to accept?
> Egyptological "understanding" is a non sequitur.
Utter 373
Quick easy sourceQuote
Oho! Oho! Rise up, O Teti!Take your head, collect your bones,Gather your limbs, shake the earth from your flesh!Take your bread that rots not, your beer that sours not,Stand at the gates that bar the common people!The gatekeeper comes out to you, he grasps your hand,Takes you into heaven, to your father Geb.He rejoices at your coming, gives you his hands,Kisses you, caresses you,Sets you before the spirits, the imperishable stars...The hidden ones worship you,The great ones surround you,The watchers wait on you,Barley is threshed for you,Emmer is reaped for you,Your monthly feasts are made with it,Your half-month feasts are made with it,As ordered done for you by Geb, your father,Rise up, O Teti, you shall not die!
Just one , and makes much more sense in the aggregate context of confirmed consistent Ancient Egyptian culture over millenia, than your pyscho babble fantasy.
If a new find was made today containing heiroglyphs seeming to be consistent with PT would you be able to read it and decipher it?
Or would you have to wait for someone else to read and publish it so you could google it and put your spin on it?
It is like you hammering a nail into a house and then claiming you built it!
>
> The word "ramp" is unattested. The Pyramid Texts
> tells exactly what they used instead and is
> consistent with the physical evidence. Meanwhile
> the entire paradigm ultimately depends from ramps,
> superstition, tombs, and a belief that the PT
> makes no sense so only scholars can understand it.
> It makes sense only in terms of the book of the
> dead which necessitates that nothing ever changed.
See utterance 373 above.... ok ... hammer your nails, and try and tell us what you imagine it really means!?????
>
>
> How do people not see this?
>
> The king is nekkid and his clothes are only a
> construct of opinion. Two centuries of opinion do
> not make a fact.
If you ever come up with a fact not clouded by your opinion then there will celebration on the interwebs from folks all over the world.
Cheers
